Todd is asking Dan about his concept of slow travel. The below is part of Dan's reply.

Yeah, I mean especially maybe because I'm a blogger, we're always
seeking to define things in unique ways. And there’s a lot of terms
out there. There’s expat; people that have left their native country.
There’s backpacker, which is someone who tries to keep their cost very
low and they’re continually moving from place to place. There’s flash
packer, which is a term that means you still have income from
somewhere and you have more tech and toys, and you stay at maybe nicer
hotels.

But what I did was always a little bit different, which is I would go
and get long term leases or medium term leases at apartments. So I
would go and get a house or an apartment in a place for anywhere from
one to six months, and enjoy what it feels like to actually live
somewhere.And that to me is so exciting, you know. Although the
sights and everything are cool, and hanging out with tourists can be
fun, I much prefer to go down to the local café, open up my laptop,
talk to the people that are working there, and really get a sense for
what it’s like to live in a city. (From
http://www.elllo.org/english/1301/T1325-Dan-Slowtravel.htm)

At first the speaker is using the present tense (the entire first paragraph). Then he suddenly starts using the past tense(did, would go, would go), and then returns to the present tense again.

The speaker could well have said the following instead to keep the tense consistency.

But what I do is always a little bit different, which is I go and
get long term leases or medium term leases at apartments. So I go
and get a house or an apartment in a place for anywhere from one to
six months, and enjoy what it feels like to actually live somewhere.

I want to know why the speaker chooses the past tense over the present tense in the beginning of the second paragraph. Thanks for the comments and the answer which help me clarify my question.

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

One assumes that 'what it feels like to actually live somewhere' has changed little over the time-span between the historical setting (the time / days when 'I would go and get a house or an apartment ... ') and the time of writing. The switch is a little jarring – I'd have a new paragraph for 'And that to me is so exciting ... '.
– Edwin AshworthMay 18 at 16:20

It's not wrong - as you say the would carries over so we understand would enjoy.
– user339660May 18 at 15:59

Welcome to ELU, wtdark. I don't see how this really helps; 'and would enjoy what it felt like' is the expanded version of the alternative. Why feels (and then is; are; can be ...) rather than felt?
– Edwin AshworthMay 18 at 16:12

@EdwinAshworth I think the OP realises that would + present refers to a habitual action the past, or the question would relate to would go as well as ... enjoy, so I think the answer is spot on.
– user339660May 18 at 17:53

+1 I agree with this, but would add more to the assumed elision: I would go and get . . .and [I would go and] enjoy. As matter of preference, I would actually write go and enjoy rather than just enjoy. (Or I would not use go and in the first part of the sentence at all.)
– Jason BassfordMay 18 at 18:04

@Minty There's no argument about 'would' having been omitted. But 'would go and enjoy what it feels like' and 'would go and enjoy what it felt like' remain possibilities. This question is about "[the use of the p]ast tense or present tense to describe something that 'happened in the past' but is still true[]", and has been covered before.
– Edwin AshworthMay 18 at 18:43